Sir, – In his enthusiasm to abolish the Seanad, Desmond FitzGerald seems keen to abolish our history books along with it ( September 11th).
First, he claims David Norris has attempted to become a TD by standing for the Dáil. In fact, Mr Norris has contested six Seanad elections, but has never stood for the Dáil.
Second, he challenges readers to name 10 Senators “who were not a Dáil has-been or wannabe”. Within two minutes of reading his letter I had already scribbled down 14 names: WB Yeats, Jim Dooge, TK Whitaker, Dr Maurice Hayes, Alexis Fitzgerald (Snr), Seamus Mallon, Brid Rodgers, Catherine McGuinness, Prof John A Murphy, Prof Joe Lee, Feargal Quinn, Joe O’Toole, David Norris and Dr Mary Henry.
These 14 people served a total of 45 terms in the Seanad between them. None of them were ever members of the Dáil, nor did they ever seek election to the Dáil. There are many other examples.
What strikes you immediately is the sheer impact which they collectively had on our society and our politics. Would any of them have been elected under the parish-pump Dáil system which will be retained post-Seanad? And would our country really be better off if they had never served in our Parliament?
Mr FitzGerald also asks readers to name “one time since its creation when the Seanad did anything to prevent the Dáil making one of its many bad laws”. Again, two very obvious examples spring immediately to mind.
Fianna Fáil’s second attempt to rig the electoral system by abolishing PR-STV in 1968 was delayed by the Seanad, thereby helping to prevent perpetual Fianna Fáil rule for the rest of that century. Also, Fianna Fáil’s bizarre attempt to ban opinion polls during the final week of election campaigns was scuppered by Shane Ross in the Seanad in 2001.
I can only presume that Mr FitzGerald had no objection to either of these attempts to distort our democracy, or that they passed him by completely unnoticed. – Yours, etc,
BARRY WALSH,
Brooklawn,
Clontarf, Dublin 3.
A chara, – Martin Mansergh’s rambling attack on Sinn Féin (September 11th), under the guise of criticism of its stance on the abolition of the Seanad, is a timely reminder of the sheer gall, hypocrisy and arrogance of that once all powerful symbol of Irish political life – Fianna Fáil Man.
I could indulge in a long rambling incoherent dissection of the challenges of this State’s and Fianna Fáil’s violent origins, the rather undemocratic bloody atrocities of the Civil War and the politically earth-shattering challenges of attempting to import arms while in a government; but that would do no more than to indulge Mr Mansergh in his political game.
Let me simply cut to the chase and quote from the Fianna Fáil election manifesto of 2011, which stated, “much of the rationale for the inclusion of the Seanad in Bunreacht na hÉireann has ceased to be relevant over time”, and more to the point, “It is important to note that second chambers are not an essential part of parliamentary democracy”.
Yes, in 2011, the Fianna Fáil election manifesto supported the abolition of the Seanad while now, just over two years later, we have Martin Mansergh admonishing Sinn Féin for taking a similar stance while at the same time attempting to score political points by demonising that same party. It is indeed a timely reminder of times past in Irish political life.
My, oh my, how we have all missed Fianna Fáil Man. – Is mise,
EF FANNING,
Whitehall Road,
Churchtown, Dublin 14.
A chara, – At the launch of his party’s referendum campaign, Enda Kenny stood with a copy of the Constitution in his hand and declared that “It is the constitutional responsibility of Dáil Éireann to hold the Government to account”. I am amazed that Mr Kenny was able to keep a straight face in making this declaration.
We witnessed, during the passage of the recent abortion legislation, just how ruthless this Government can be in using the whip system to exert its control over the Dáil. To suggest the Dáil can hold the Government to account, and ergo we do not need the Seanad, is simply absurd, and suggests a degree of desperation already in this campaign.
Meanwhile, Mr Kenny’s party colleagues have suggested that scrapping the Seanad could save us upwards of €20 million a year. However, in his appearance before the Committee of Public Accounts on January 12th, 2012, the secretary general of the Houses of the Oireachtas Commission, Kieran Coughlan, made it clear that the annual cost of running the Seanad was €22.5 million. Of this figure, €13.3 million was as a result of indirect costs which, since the Dáil and Seanad are co-located, would remain a cost to the State even if the Seanad was abolished. The only saving to the State would be the €9.2 million in salaries, staff allowances and equipment.
The constant reference by Fine Gael deputies to a saving of €20 million a year – and their continued refusal to elaborate on how this saving would be achieved – is, I believe, another indication of the desperate attempts to justify what looks increasingly like a power-grab.
The Seanad in its current guise is not an adequate democratic safeguard, but certainly the abolition of the second chamber leaves our legislative powers more vulnerable to the whims of party politics and ideology. – Is mise,
SIMON O’CONNOR,
Lismore Road,
Crumlin, Dublin 12.
Sir, – It is a pity Michael Mc Dowell (former Minister and leader of the Progressive Democrats) was not as passionate when he was in government for eight years to ensure the financial regulator and the governor of the Central Bank were doing their job ensuring the banks were run properly as he is now to retain the Seanad.
As a founder member of the Progressive Democrats, I can well remember one of the its policies was to abolish the Seanad – also to reduce the number of TDs from 166 to 100.
We know these policies were never carried out when the PDs were in government with Fianna Fáil. At least Taoiseach Enda Kenny has the guts and courage to implement the promise he made prior to the last election to abolish the Seanad.
Mr Mc Dowell said on one occasion the Seanad was a place for would-bes and a place for has-beens. One reason the PDs were formed was to try and stop the corruption and the mismanagement of the economy by Fianna Fáil at that time: that is why I and thousands of others joined that party.
As soon as Michael Mc Dowell and Mary Harney got the opportunity to go into government with Fianna Fáil, they did so, against the wishes of the vast majority of the members. That is why there is no PD party any more; because of Michael McDowell, I, and thousands of members, resigned.
The people of Ireland have a great opportunity to get rid of the Seanad in the forthcoming referendum, and save €20 million in outrageous salaries and expenses for Senators, that we cannot afford any more.
Do your country a service and vote Yes to abolish the Seanad. – Yours, etc,
NOEL PEERS,
Brandondale,
Graignamanagh,
Co Kilkenny
Sir, – Enda Kenny and Fine Gael are spending considerable energy and a considerable amount of taxpayers’ money in attempting to abolish the Seanad and thus add 60 people to the dole queue. The energy and money is misplaced and should be directed to putting the 14 per cent of our population who are unemployed back to work; and stemming the increasing number of our talented youth who have to emigrate. Perhaps the talents of this group could be better employed in devising a realistic plan to put people back to work and perhaps succeed where the lower house has failed. – Yours, etc,
DEREK Mac HUGH,
Westminster Lawns,
Foxrock, Dublin 18 .
Sir, – There is a misconception about the Seanad referendum that those in favour of reform should vote No. In fact, reform can happen even if you vote Yes. In the 1930s the Seanad was abolished only for it to be re-created two years later. If it happened once, it can happen again.
In the event the referendum is approved, there is nothing stopping a future government asking the people to re-establish a reformed Seanad. The danger of a No vote is that there is no guarantee of reform. It is highly unlikely that reform will occur before the next general election. This means an unreformed Seanad could continue until the subsequent general election, in seven years’ time. Even then, there is no guarantee that a future government would reform the Seanad, or that a reform referendum would be approved.
Those in favour of reform should vote Yes, as it is the safest option. – Yours, etc,
JASON FITZHARRIS,
Rivervalley,
Swords, Co Dublin.